There are several questions in this thread that I have asked that have been ignored and that remain unanswered. I would sincerely like to see the answers, particularly since the implications have been that the answers support a scientific consensus regarding the VMS.
So here is a repeat of those questions along with some additional related ones. I'm asking these of anyone who might have the answers.
1) Wilfrid Voynich said in his 1921 lecture to the College of Physicians in Philadelphia that he found the Marci letter "attached" to the front cover of the VMS. Is there any other documented reference to the Marci Letter being colocated with (even if not actually attached to) the VMS from PRIOR to that 1921 lecture?.
2) Likewise, in that same lecture, Wilfrid Voynich described the signature of "Jacobus de Tepenecz" found on folio f1r. (There are variations of the spelling - I usually use "Tepenec".) Is there any other documented reference to the presence of this signature PRIOR to the 1921 lecture?
The form of the signature "Jacobus de Tepenecz" does not match the form one might expect where the surname is included. E.g. "Jacobus Hořčický de Tepenec" or "Jacobus Sinapius de Tepenec". But that does not mean it is not actually Hořčický's signature. Sometimes abbreviated signatures like that seen in the VMS were used.
3. Is there any other example of Hořčický's signature (post 1608 after his enoblement with the de Tepenec title) that actually matches the form found in the VMS?
4. (alternative to the above question...) Can someone point to multiple examples of his signature that show variants of form such that "Jacobus de Tepenecz" would be one of his natural variants and and not a unique and distinct outlier?
Referring back to my diagram of the Voynich Provenance Timeline, for which there is a most-recent update below:
5. Are there any relevant evidence-based claims of ownership/possession of the VMS that I have missed on the diagram?
6. Is there specific documented evidence that further confirms one of the owners/possessors already on the diagram?
(Questions 5 and 6 are posed only to help me improve the diagram, as was requested when I posted it. For those, I do NOT mean additional circumstantial evidence that fills in a narrative surrounding the claim, but rather a piece of evidence from which the particular claim of ownership/possession is directly derived.)
I don't think any of these questions are unreasonable to ask. Or to expect answers on. Particularly from anyone who feel that the standard provenance story should not be questioned.
So here is a repeat of those questions along with some additional related ones. I'm asking these of anyone who might have the answers.
1) Wilfrid Voynich said in his 1921 lecture to the College of Physicians in Philadelphia that he found the Marci letter "attached" to the front cover of the VMS. Is there any other documented reference to the Marci Letter being colocated with (even if not actually attached to) the VMS from PRIOR to that 1921 lecture?.
2) Likewise, in that same lecture, Wilfrid Voynich described the signature of "Jacobus de Tepenecz" found on folio f1r. (There are variations of the spelling - I usually use "Tepenec".) Is there any other documented reference to the presence of this signature PRIOR to the 1921 lecture?
The form of the signature "Jacobus de Tepenecz" does not match the form one might expect where the surname is included. E.g. "Jacobus Hořčický de Tepenec" or "Jacobus Sinapius de Tepenec". But that does not mean it is not actually Hořčický's signature. Sometimes abbreviated signatures like that seen in the VMS were used.
3. Is there any other example of Hořčický's signature (post 1608 after his enoblement with the de Tepenec title) that actually matches the form found in the VMS?
4. (alternative to the above question...) Can someone point to multiple examples of his signature that show variants of form such that "Jacobus de Tepenecz" would be one of his natural variants and and not a unique and distinct outlier?
Referring back to my diagram of the Voynich Provenance Timeline, for which there is a most-recent update below:
5. Are there any relevant evidence-based claims of ownership/possession of the VMS that I have missed on the diagram?
6. Is there specific documented evidence that further confirms one of the owners/possessors already on the diagram?
(Questions 5 and 6 are posed only to help me improve the diagram, as was requested when I posted it. For those, I do NOT mean additional circumstantial evidence that fills in a narrative surrounding the claim, but rather a piece of evidence from which the particular claim of ownership/possession is directly derived.)
I don't think any of these questions are unreasonable to ask. Or to expect answers on. Particularly from anyone who feel that the standard provenance story should not be questioned.